Skip to content


Tirumala Venkata Reddy and ors. Vs. Sikatapu Ramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad55; (1927)53MLJ733
AppellantTirumala Venkata Reddy and ors.
RespondentSikatapu Ramayya
Cases ReferredSheobhanjan v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....1st class, may appeal to the court of session'. so it is clear that only a court of session can hear appeals against convictions by 1st class magistrates. it is contended for the accused before us that in as much as the trial was begun by a 2nd class magistrate the appeal lay to the district. magistrate. this on the face of it is an untenable position. the district magistrate has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from the decisions of 2nd class magistrate. the moment a 2nd class magistrate is invested with the powers of a 1st class magistrate he becomes a 1st class magistrate and any convictions by him in cases which were taken up by him as a 2nd class magistrate would be only convictions as a 1st class magistrate. we do not think it necessary to cite any authority but we may refer.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of West Godavari Division. The case was tried by a Magistrate who had second class powers and the trial was continued by him after he got 1st class powers. The case was re-numbered after he got 1st class powers. He convicted the accused and an appeal against this conviction was preferred to the District Magistrate who quashed the conviction holding that the case against the accused was not made out. The question is whether the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of a 1st class Magistrate. The District Magistrate seems to justify his action on the ground that the trial was started by a second class Magistrate and he thought that he had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, says 'any person convicted on a trial held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, a District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the 1st class or any person sentenced under Section 349 or in respect of whom an order has been made or sentence has been passed under Section 380 by a Magistrate of the 1st class, may appeal to the Court of Session'. So it is clear that only a Court of Session can hear appeals against convictions by 1st class Magistrates. It is contended for the accused before us that in as much as the trial was begun by a 2nd class Magistrate the appeal lay to the District. Magistrate. This on the face of it is an untenable position. The District Magistrate has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from the decisions of 2nd class Magistrate. The moment a 2nd class Magistrate is invested with the powers of a 1st class Magistrate he becomes a 1st class Magistrate and any convictions by him in cases which were taken up by him as a 2nd class Magistrate would be only convictions as a 1st class Magistrate. We do not think it necessary to cite any authority but we may refer with approval to the case reported in Sheobhanjan v. Emperor : AIR1925Pat472 . The District Magistrate not having had' jurisdiction to hear the appeal his decision must be set aside as being without jurisdiction. We therefore set aside the acquittal by the District Magistrate on appeal, direct the Sessions Judge to send for the appeal records from the District Magistrate's Court, to take it on his file and to dispose of it according to law, after giving notice to the accused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //